Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• searchKnowledgeBasesA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action of searching and offers no details about result types, relevance ordering, what happens when no knowledgeBaseIds are given, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency for a tool expected to return content.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, well-formed sentence that communicates the core purpose without any redundancy or filler. It earns its place with zero waste.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain enough about behavior to allow correct usage, but it omits what the returned 'relevant content' looks like, whether the search defaults to all knowledge bases, and any pagination or filtering nuances. This leaves significant gaps for a non-trivial tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (query, documentCount, knowledgeBaseIds). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses the specific verb 'search' with the resource 'knowledge bases' and clarifies scope as 'one or more'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like listKnowledgeBases and getKnowledgeBase, which perform listing and retrieval respectively.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies this tool is for finding relevant content across one or more knowledge bases, which naturally contrasts with list/get siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention possible exclusions, so it falls short of the highest bar.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• getKnowledgeBaseA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. 'Get details' clearly indicates a read operation, but it does not mention error behavior, authentication, or any other side effects. For a simple retrieval, this is minimally adequate, but lacks depth.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficient for an agent to know what it does and how to invoke it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, which is a minor gap.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description ('The ID of the knowledge base to retrieve'). The tool description only repeats 'by ID', adding no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb 'Get details' with a clear resource 'knowledge base' and a qualifier 'by ID'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like listKnowledgeBases (list all) and searchKnowledgeBases (search), and directly states the primary action and target.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage when you know the specific ID, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with siblings. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, so the agent must infer from context.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• listKnowledgeBasesA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but does not explicitly state safety, authentication needs, or return format. For a simple list operation this is minimally adequate, but it adds no context beyond the literal action.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word is necessary, with no filler or repetition, achieving optimal conciseness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  This is a simple list tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fully captures the essential behavior—listing all knowledge bases. Given the low complexity, nothing important is missing; siblings are not required to be mentioned here.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the description correctly needs to explain none. The empty input schema is fully covered, and the description adds no parameter-specific details, which is appropriate given there are no parameters. Baseline of 4 applies.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('knowledge bases'), and the scope ('all available'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like getKnowledgeBase (singular) and searchKnowledgeBases (filtered). It unambiguously states what the tool does.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the name and sibling tool names, but the description itself does not mention when to choose it over getKnowledgeBase or searchKnowledgeBases, nor does it note any exclusions or prerequisites.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• getMcpServersA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or what the output contains. It is not misleading, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'List' and the target resource. There is no unnecessary information, making it highly efficient and appropriately structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple zero-parameter listing tool, the description is sufficiently complete. There is no output schema, so the description could potentially mention what fields are returned per server, but given the simplicity and clarity of the purpose, this is not a major gap. The tool's domain is clearly established.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline score of 4. The description provides no parameter information, which is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all MCP servers configured in Cherry Studio'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on knowledge bases. The purpose is unambiguous.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description clearly implies this tool is for listing MCP servers, and sibling tools are entirely different resources (knowledge bases), so there is no conflict. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions, though none seem necessary here.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.